For the first time ESPN is being generous. What would happen if Ryan Anderson took 20 shots. He shoots threes at a 40% clip so if all his shots were threes he would average 24 points per game. My point being if you shoot enough your going to get points. Melo is an average player given a green light.

I think you guys are missing the point of the rankings. The valuation isn't points per game but what you bring to the game in terms of defense, assists and overall team play. Harden, Westbrook and LeBron have changed the thinking of rankings.

Love or hate, what do y'all see on the court?Wins and Losses? Shot attempts?Yes, he has great fundamental (from hard work) footwork and gets that shot off.Rebounding? Assists? adds to wins? Makes others better?Melo would be great on rockets!!!! Warriors!!! Olympics!!!! He is a good guy, not evil.Its not personal, and rankings are stupid, but it is what it is.

With as many years in the league, why not let his game speak for itself. So, what do you see?

[Carmelo Anthony: Can’t Make Sense Out Of Non Sense! AS LONG AS I KNOW IM NICE, FUCK IT IM MY OWN FAN “A certain darkness is needed to see the stars.” @Espn Don’t be so Blatant with the disrespect #GoneToFar #LineEmUp – via Instagram /quote]ProphetMelo

Knicks1248:
1. Dolan should be more involved! 2. Why would any knick fan want pick 8, when that spot has a history of producing marginal NBA taken. (He prefers pick 9th instead)

Vmart wrote:I think you guys are missing the point of the rankings. The valuation isn't points per game but what you bring to the game in terms of defense, assists and overall team play. Harden, Westbrook and LeBron have changed the thinking of rankings.

How COULD that be the case when lonzo ball hasn't played a second of NBA ball and they ranked him ahead of melo.

TO me ESPN ranks on potential, which is idiotic.

If I had to rank ESPN on potential, they would be ranked on the bottom among sports networks.

If it wasn't for JUST A HAND FULL of decent sports center anchors like linda cohn, neil everret, stan verret, scott van pelt, I would never watch them.

Vmart wrote:I think you guys are missing the point of the rankings. The valuation isn't points per game but what you bring to the game in terms of defense, assists and overall team play. Harden, Westbrook and LeBron have changed the thinking of rankings.

How COULD that be the case when lonzo ball hasn't played a second of NBA ball and they ranked him ahead of melo.

TO me ESPN ranks on potential, which is idiotic.

If I had to rank ESPN on potential, they would be ranked on the bottom among sports networks.

If it wasn't for JUST A HAND FULL of decent sports center anchors like linda cohn, neil everret, stan verret, scott van pelt, I would never watch them.

I agree with that that means this is a projected ranking and they should differentiate that it mean nothing. Melo could have the best season ever and who knows these rankings are merely projections.

Bonn1997 wrote:What's wrong with projections? You only want a discussion when there's certainty? You turn off the TV every time they give a weather forecast?

being a weather man is the only job on the planet you can get wrong 4x a wk and still keep your job..

Thats just how ESPN is.

Yet being wrong often is better than having no information. Do you go to the doctor and take medication? They're making a prediction that the benefits will outweigh the side effects too. Almost every profession involves making error-prone predictions actually.

Bonn1997 wrote:What's wrong with projections? You only want a discussion when there's certainty? You turn off the TV every time they give a weather forecast?

being a weather man is the only job on the planet you can get wrong 4x a wk and still keep your job..

Thats just how ESPN is.

Yet being wrong often is better than having no information. Do you go to the doctor and take medication? They're making a prediction that the benefits will outweigh the side effects too. Almost every profession involves making error-prone predictions actually.

being flat out wrong is like having no info anyway, just save yourself the embarrassment and report accurate information when you get it.

Bonn1997 wrote:What's wrong with projections? You only want a discussion when there's certainty? You turn off the TV every time they give a weather forecast?

being a weather man is the only job on the planet you can get wrong 4x a wk and still keep your job..

Thats just how ESPN is.

Yet being wrong often is better than having no information. Do you go to the doctor and take medication? They're making a prediction that the benefits will outweigh the side effects too. Almost every profession involves making error-prone predictions actually.

being flat out wrong is like having no info anyway, just save yourself the embarrassment and report accurate information when you get it.

just so Im clear, are you defending ESPN?

Whether it's medicine or meteorology, being wrong is often worse than having no information actually.

64 sounds like a reasonable prediction assuming Melo has a better attitude than last year. I didn't go through the whole list. Defending "ESPN" is a broad statement. ESPN is huge and does all sorts of stuff. I'm definitely a fan of ESPN's fivethirtyeight.com site. I'm sure I'd defend some and criticize some ESPN material.

As a Melo fan (prior to him joining the Knicks, that is)... I think being on a losing team has hurt his valuation. Presuming he's with us for a little bit, let's see what he can do with Hornacek running his own system.

I was extremely surprised by our lack of success last year. On paper, I thought the Knicks had more firepower than the Hornacek-led Suns team that won 49 games a few years ago, but somehow it didn't come together.